ML19309B243

Response in Opposition to Fourth Special Prehearing Conference Order Disposing Restart Contentions Ii(C),Iii(A) (a) & Iii(A)(B).Urges Revision of Order Due to Improper Determination of Merits.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19309B243
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/10/1980
From:	Bowers J ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8004030322
Download: ML19309B243 (4)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I C00E 3 t;.:7.0 Y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR: [ - MAR omca cts 1 C Exer! CE > In the Matter of ) 9 D:MJg G Cata j

                                                         )                                                                           6:::t             f METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY                          )           Docket No. 50-28 4 (Three Mile Island Nuclear                          )           (Restart)                                                      I& I i *a Stetion, Unit One)                                   )
                                                         )

OBJECTIONS OF ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK TO FOURTH SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER Intervenor Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York hereby interposes pursuant to 10 CFR 2.751a(d) its objections to the Fourth Special Prehear,ing Conference Order. ANGRY Contention II(C) l The Board's disposition of Contention II(C) constitutes an impeoper determination of thn merits of said contention. In its February 4 Request for Reconsideration ANGRY 1 sst forth a factual elaboration of the principle basis for this contention as set forth in its original submission of contentions dated October 22, 1979. This elaboration consisted of a recitation of instances of emergency response recommendations dsring the TMI-2 accident for distances in excess of 10 miles from the reactor. In its February 20 opposition to ANGRY's request for reconsideration, the licensee correctly states that "thetrelevant inquiry..o in whether such considerations have a sufficient basis in,n fact" (p. 2)(emphasis added). Upon accapaance of this contention f.NGRY would endeavor to make an evidentiary showing that given thm potential radiological release characteristies of the TMI-2 accident such considerations did, and thereofece do have such a " sufficient basis in fact." The licensee would presumably l 1 To be precise, "an elaboration or refinement of previously advanced arguments" (Order, l p. 28). ANGRY objects to the Board's finding that in its February 4 filing ANGRY "has now specifically set forth its bases for urging a 20-mile EPZ, albeit belatedly. .'.' (emphasis addsd). In its Third Special Order the Board found ANGRY's basis deficient not for lack of cpecificity, but because, according to the Board, it was " illogical',' a characterization ! which remains unettplained. 3004038 BR

undertake to make an opposite evidentiary showing. However, despite the absence of any evidentiary record whatsoever, the Board in its Fourth Special Order purports to resolve this dispute conclusively in favor of the licensee by finding that the instances cited by ANGRY are "no more than opinions voiced during the accident, and without specific support" (p. 30) . Such a determination on the merits of any contention at this stage of this proceeding is manifestly improper.2 ANGRY Contentions III(A)(a) and III(A)(b) While ANGRY finds acceptable the Board's ultimate disposition of its contentions III(A)(a) and III(A)(b), i.e. , consolidation with Sholly contention 8(c), certain of the Board's subsid&&ary findings and conclusions edl in ANGRY's judgment objectionable. First, the Board substantially modifies the identify of the " local conditions" which the NRC in its proposed rulemaking indicated might warrant departure from a uniformly circular 10-mile EPZ. As qyeted by this Board, the NRC stated that: The exact size and configuration of of the EPZ's...shall be determined in relation to the emergency response needs...as they are affected by such local conditions as. . . local jurisdictional boundaries. (Third' Special Order, P. 4) The NRC thus identified " local jurisdictional boundaries" as " local conditions" which in and of themselves3 might be sufficient to warrant departure from a 10-mile EPZ. The Board substantially inflates this standard in requiring as a_ threshold matter the specification of the " local conditions M each population center" (Fourth Special Order,p.29;emphasisadded)/warrantingdeviationfroma10-mileEPZ. I 2 The Board ignores the NRC Staff's position that " previous consideration of a 2C-mile radius- (is) evidence that might prove useful in proving the sufficiency of a 10-mile FHdius" (NRC Staff Response to ANGRY Request for Reconsideration..., February 26, 1980,

p. 3, n.3). Furthermore, in its answers to ANGRY's first set of interrogator:tes, the l

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania confirms that the NRC explicitly instructed state and local emergency planning officials to extend their capability to a distance of 20 miles from the reactor site during the accident (Response to Interrogatories, February 15, 1980,

p. 5).

3 The NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group stated in its report that "at the very least, cignificant centers of population beyond 10 miles from the plant must be considered in the planning as well" (Vol.1, p.133) . 4 In any event ANGRY did specify the" local conditions" within the city of York which in its judgment warrant its inclusion within the plume EPZ.

Second,theBoardindicatesthat{{heconsolidatedANGRY-Shollycontention"isnot better specified it will not be accepted as an issue for evidentiary consideration" (Fourth Special Order, p. 31). ANGRY believes this determination to be in error. Certainly ANGRY and Mr. Sholly can be expected to identify as comprehensiv&&y as they can thbse local conditions which in their judgment require a departure from a uniform 10-m11e EPZ. However both Sholly contention 8(c) and ANGRY contention III(A)(a) challenge the failure of the licensee's emergency plan to reflect any consideration of local conditions that might warrant such a depgrture. Certainly the efforts of interveno2 to specify such conditions does not relieve the licensee of its independant obligation make determinations as to their existence in the area surrounding the reactor. (Were the licensee to make such determinations, then the methodology utilized and the reasonableness of the conslusions reached would be appropriate subjects for litigation.) Thus even if the consolidated Sholly-ANGRY contention received no further specification it would still be appropriate for litigation as a challenge to the failure of the emergency plans of the licensee and of surrounding governmental ' units to consider local conditions in their adoption of a uniform 10-mile EPZ. Conclusion ANGRY respectfully requests the Board to revise its Fourth Special Prehearing Conference Order in accordance with the views hereinabovuc set forth. Respectfully submitted, ANTI-NUCL GRO REPRESENTING YORK By: //V\ Jol owers 245 W. Philadelphia St. Ycrk, Pa. 17402 DATE: March 10, 1980 5 As indicated above, ANGRY believes this has already been done with requisite specifi-city in regard to the " jurisdictional boundaries" of York and Harrisburg. 6 A precedent for such a conclusion exists in this Board's handling of UCS contention 13, in connection with which the Board stated that upon the failure of intervenors to

                               " identify specific accident sequences'.'. ." "all that will remain or contention 13 will be evidence addressing the general method by which the staff has determined whether accidents within the scope of this proceeding fall within or outside the design basis." (Third Special Order, p. 18, n. 10).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!! MISSION BEFORE THE A'IDMIC . SAFETY AfD LICENSING DDARD In the ?'atter of )

                                                               )

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ) Docket No . 50-280

                                                              )           (Rest art )

(Three "ile Island thclear Station ) Unit No . 1) ) c CERTIFTCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the enclosed Objections to Fourth Special Prehearing Conference Order were served on each of the following i 7rsons by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 10th day of March, 1980 l

     ' van W. Smit h, Esq.                                    Docketing and Service Section Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board                       Office of the Secretary U.S. thclear Regulatory Commission                       U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingt on, D .C . 20555                                Washington, D .C . 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan                                     James A . Tourtellotte, Esq.

881 W. Outer Drive Office of Executive Legal Director Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D .C . 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little George F. Trowbridge, Esq. 5000 Hez-nitage Drive Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Raleigh, North Carolina 1800 M. Street, N.W.

                                            . 7'          Washington, D .C . 20006
                                          }N.Q       '. .

[;- - - I nN 'r*. l Q r. - ou 8 :-

                              \ $ ^' ~~ -                 '

('-

                                    ,,                                  . . . .         \,    , , .

N, ()y> \

                                           '~'                                                      ~

Holl y S . Keck ! l j Dated: March 10,1980 _ _ __ __}}